Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Mohammad Abdul Hai Mohammad Abdul ... on 2 March, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
(1) 904-wp-1683-2021 & Anr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 WRIT PETITION NO.1683 OF 2021
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
PWD AND OTHERS ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
ASMAN DHONDIRAM GARJE AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the Petitioners.
Mr. Arvind S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.1 to 4.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1684 OF 2021
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
PWD AND OTHERS ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
MOHAMMAD ABDUL HAI MOHAMMAD ABDUL GANI
AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the Petitioners.
Mr. Avinash S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.1 to 7.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 02nd MARCH, 2021.
PER COURT:-
1. The learned A.G.P. submits that the
Tribunal is in error in not considering the case
put forth by the petitioners-State. It relied upon
the judgment of the Principal Seat at Bombay in
Writ Petition No.9266/2017 with connected writ
(2) 904-wp-1683-2021 & Anr.
petitions decided under the judgment dated
17.07.2018. According to the learned A.G.P. mere
passing of the professional examination by the Sub-
Overseers would not ipso facto entitle them to get
the deemed date of promotion to the post of
Overseer.
2. The learned A.G.P. further submits that
Government Resolutions dated 16.09.1964 and
07.06.1965 have not been properly construed by the
Tribunal. In the judgment of the Division Bench at
the Principal Seat at Bombay referred to above also
the said Government Resolution has not been
interpreted. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Government
Resolution dated 16.09.1964 needs to be considered.
The availability of the post in the cadre of
Overseer is relevant factor and number of posts in
the cadre of Overseers to be filled in by such
promotions of Sub-Overseers is restricted to 10% of
the total number of posts in the cadre of
Overseers. So unless the 10% posts as is clarified
in Clause 4 of the Government Resolution dated
16.09.1964 are available, the respondents would not
be entitled for the deemed date of promotion to the
post of Overseers merely upon passing professional
examination.
3. According to the learned counsels for
respondents the Government Resolutions dated
16.09.1964 and 07.06.1965 have been interpreted by
the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat
(3) 904-wp-1683-2021 & Anr.
at Bombay in its judgment dated 17.07.2018 in Writ
Petition No.9266/2017 with connected writ petitions
and the same has been rightly interpreted. On the
date of passing of the professional examination,
the Sub-Overseers would be deemed to be absorbed on
the post of Overseers as on 01st February of the
year in which the result is declared.
4. The learned counsels also seek to rely
jpon the orders passed by the learned Industrial
Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and
for that purpose seek time.
5. Stand over to 16.03.2021.
6. The learned counsels submit that they
would not press Contempt Petition till the next
date.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/March-2021
